Commentary on Unitarian Universalist faith development in congregations and the wider liberal religious community

10 July 2009

Ministers and Professional Ethics

I'm writing this as a layperson in response to the recent blog criticisms from some Unitarian Universalist ministers who have been critical of the new UUA President Rev. Peter Morales and/or recent ceremonies at General Assembly.

I will stand in a supportive relation to my colleagues and keep for them an open mind and heart.

***

I will not speak scornfully or in derogation of any colleague in public. In any private conversation critical of a colleague, I will speak responsibly and temperately.

So ... even if you think that Peter Morales was the worst possible choice for UUA President and you're still grieving over the the loss of Laurel Hallman, should you be expressing your concerns in a public blog setting for all of us to read?

Is expressing the very deep hurt that some of you are feeling the best way to embody the values in your ministerial code of ethics?

And if you think that a recent ritual at General Assembly was totally wrong for polity or other reasons, is a public blog the best setting for expressing these thoughts?

Again, does this embody the values in the ministerial ethics that all of you affirm?

I'm not telling anyone what to say, think, or feel. I'm simply asking if a public blog conversation about these issues is appropriate.

36 comments:

I think you confuse a clear, public discussion of matters of polity with "scornfully or in derogation" -- at least for the installation-rite matter Victoria Weinstein, others and I have raised. In fact, I've yet to see a General Assembly-related discussion of controversy that devolved into personal debate, which is itself a higher standard than the UUMA's.

If you place the threshold so high that we cannot have substantive discussions, the rot will eat us away. In my experience, contented Unitarian Universalists resist criticism and blame the messenger. Sideways ethics charges, however couched, don't help.

I think an open, public airing is exactly what is needed, and I can't think of a better, more open and available forum, where both clergy and laity can express their views and concerns for all to see. Why should such concerns only be only whispered in secret among a select few? Why shouldn't discussion be held in the open, where all can hear and respond? I haven't seen anything that I would call an ad hominem attack, and everything I have read so far seems to have been expressed "responsibly and temperately".

I don't think the concerns that have been expressed are about any particular person, anyway. They are about the very obvious misappropriation of a liturgical ceremony that has a very specific meaning and context within our own denominational tradition, and what that misappropriation may signify. If it was intentional, that raises one set of issues, but if it was unwitting, that raises a different set of issues.

I've assumed that what I object to was not the work of a single individual, but of a committee.

I also think that the committee (whoever it might have included) did everything wrong that Fausto has outlined. Whether they misappropriated the rituals of other groups from a long-considered desire to move UU in that theological direction or because they thought it would be cool and simply never thought further, it's opens the window to behaviors or practices that many among us are queasy about.

I have noticed that whenever UUs complain about dirty laundry and how we should keep it to ourselves (say, in the case of a straying minister), it's probably exactly at that time that we need the sanitizing effect of lots of sunlight. Handling any controversy by keeping it quiet is exactly the way to be accused of having a small group running things.

How can we have a community consensus if we keep the greater community in the dark?

Actually, they misappropriated our own rituals, and applied them in a context that other groups do practice, but that we have always avoided until now because we have always objected on both theological and political grounds to what those rituals represent when practiced in that context.

So, either our adoption of this practice in this context signals a covert shift in theology and polity that has not been fully vetted among the members and congregations at large (Scott Wells's "power grab" theory), or else it signals a callous ignorance of or indifference toward our own liturgical, theological and political orientation as a faith community among our denominational staff and/or leadership (which I suspect is more likely). Either way, it is a serious issue with serious consequences that is best raised and discussed openly and publicly, not privately within a small, closed circle.

The kind of private reproof for personal misconduct among members of the UUMA that Steve cites is intended to avoid undermining the legitimate authority of clergy in the eyes of the laity, and to preserve strong fraternal bonds among clergy. None of that is at issue here, though. The question here is not personal misconduct but the orientation and direction of the entire denomination.

Bill Baar wrote:-snip-So, while not a minister, I'm not happy being told I'm a sore loser, when in fact I'm a troubled winner.

Bill,

My comments were not directed towards your comments on your blog or the blogs of others about either issue.

My comments were a commentary on what I perceived as public scorn from UU ministers towards their peers.

I'm guessing that the "speak scornfully in public" text in the ministerial code of ethics is not binding and is merely advisory in nature judging from some of the UU minister comments I've seen on public blogs.

Instead of public speculation about some sort of ecclesiastical "power grab" from within the UUA, wouldn't the responsible first step had been to privately contact the minister(s) involved with the closing ceremony ritual, express one's concerns, and ask for explanations.

As a minimum, a private inquiry should have been done first before public blogging about the ceremony.

In any case, a public blog bashing of UU ministers by their professional peers seems inappropriate from my perspective as a layperson.

If I remember correctly Steve you were one of the U*U on the FreeSpeech U*Us email list yet, unless you are playing Devil's Advocate here (which does not appear to be the case), you would seem to be advocating the stifling of free speech by U*U ministers in the public arena in this blog post, the title of which could just as easily been U*U Ministers and the UUMA's Code Of Silence. . . The clauses of the UUMA Guidelines that you cite here are part and parcel of the Omerta-like Code of Silence that not only keeps many U*U ministers from publicly criticizing their professional colleagues but causes *some* U*U ministers to censor and suppress criticism and dissent that is posted as comments to their blogs or submitted to UUA email lists.

Presumably you are "not providing links to these critical blogs" because you do not want to facilitate reading the public criticism that is posted there. That is your right but it is hardly an action that I would expect from a U*U who wants to champion freedom of speech.

:I will stand in a supportive relation to my colleagues and keep for them an open mind and heart.

Yes, the key word here is *supportive* and too many U*U ministers support their professional colleagues even when their words and actions are far from supportable. . .

:I will not speak scornfully or in derogation of any colleague in public. In any private conversation critical of a colleague, I will speak responsibly and temperately.

Right. So even if a U*U minister says or does something that is thoroughly deserving of scorn and derogation his and/or her professional colleagues will not say a thing to criticize them in public. Based on my own experiences of U*U clergy and UUA leaders I doubt if many U*U ministers even speak responsibly and temperately in private to U*U ministers whose behavior is questionable to say the least. . . The overriding unwritten rule of this clause of the UUMA Guidelinbes is not to speak in derogation of U*U ministers at all. In fact former UUA President Rev. Dr. John A. Buehrens seems to believe that this clause of the UUMA Guidelines even applies to U*U lay people if I interpret the following words of his correctly -

It is inappropriate to use the time set aside in community worship for "joys and concerns" to speak in derogation of the minister, no matter how disappointed you may feel in him. . . You lack a basic understanding of, and respect for, the procedures of a democratically governed religious community. The minister, having been chosen by that community, is not to be publicly attacked.

What a gigantic load of hypocritical U*U BS. Imagine if President Buehrens said -

You lack a basic understanding of, and respect for, the procedures of a democratically governed country. The President of the U.S.A., having been chosen by American voters, is not to be publicly attacked.a

:So ... even if you think that Peter Morales was the worst possible choice for UUA President and you're still grieving over the the loss of Laurel Hallman, should you be expressing your concerns in a public blog setting for all of us to read?

The answer is simple Steve. According to the UUMA Code Of Silence in both its written and *unwritten* forms public criticism of any other U*U minister is verbotten but according to U*U principles and the broader democratic principles that U*U principles ostensibly affirm and promote U*U ministers have every right to publicly criticize their colleagues. Few have the courage or integrity to do so however. . .

:Is expressing the very deep hurt that some of you are feeling the best way to embody the values in your ministerial code of ethics?

Publicly expressing personal "very deep hurt" can in no way be construed as speaking "scornfully or in derogation of any colleague in public." A free and *responsible* search for the truth and meaning of the words "scornfully" and "derogation" would have made that fact abundantly clear Steve.

:And if you think that a recent ritual at General Assembly was totally wrong for polity or other reasons, is a public blog the best setting for expressing these thoughts?

Sure. Why not Steve? How does sharing one's concerns about the appropriateness of any ritual constitute speaking "scornfully or in derogation of any colleague in public"? It seems to me that doing so falls into the "hate the sin, love the sinner" category. . . I did not see anyone criticizing President Morales himself or any other specific U*U minister as far as that controversy goes.

:Again, does this embody the values in the ministerial ethics that all of you affirm?

See above.

:I'm not telling anyone what to say, think, or feel. I'm simply asking if a public blog conversation about these issues is appropriate.

Why ask if a public blog conversation about these issues is appropriate unless you felt it to be inappropriate Steve? No you're not *telling* anyone what to say, think, or feel Steve you're just *suggesting* that they should not speak publicly about what they think or feel. . .

Why is it that U*U ministers pledge not to speak scornfully or in derogation of any colleague in public and pledge to speak responsibly and temperately on those rare occasions when they actually gather up the courage to criticize a colleague's words and actions but it is somehow "within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership" for intolerant and abusive U*U ministers to speak scornfully or in derogation of pretty much anyone else? Do tell. . .

You raised the point about whether a private inquiry should have been appropriate. I agree -- but then do you have evidence that no such inquiry took place? Or that an attempt was made to contact colleagues in private, only to be rebuffed?

To be honest, I've not read the blog postings to which you're referring, but I wonder as others commenting here have said whether these discussions rise to the level of concern.

Robin wrote:-snip-"Presumably you are 'not providing links to these critical blogs' because you do not want to facilitate reading the public criticism that is posted there. That is your right but it is hardly an action that I would expect from a U*U who wants to champion freedom of speech."

Robin,

You do know that free speech means the person writing or speaking gets to make the decisions about what one says and links to.

Just because you disagree with my editorial decision (which is my right) doesn't mean that I don't support free speech.

You are free to catalog the links to the critical posts on your blog -- that's your right.

I didn't tell you what to write Steve, I actually acknowledged your right not provide links to blog posts that you apparently do not want people to read, but you *do* seem to be telling U*U ministers what they can or cannot write on their blogs. . . Your decision not to link to those other blog posts is the least of my concerns about your apparent lack of support for the right of U*U ministers to speak their minds publicly.

AFA*I*AC Steve if you were a genuine champion of freedom of speech you would be questioning the very validity of these questionable clauses from the UUMA Guidelines which are effectively a Code of Silence instead of quoting them in a manner similar to "reading the riot act" to what you apparently consider to be unruly U*U ministers.

It is one thing for U*U ministers to pledge not to "speak scornfully" of any colleague in public but it is quite another for U*U ministers to pledge not to publicly speak in derogation at all under under any circumstances of any of their colleagues. This clause means that U*U ministers cannot publicly say anything critical of any U*U minister even if a minister has done something seriously wrong. And *that* my friend is clearly a Code Of Silence.

Why shouldn't U*U ministers be able to quite publicly be critical of a colleague, as long as they "speak responsibly and temperately"? That is the kind of question that a champion of free speech should be asking here but no. . . you ask "should you be expressing your concerns in a public blog setting for all of us to read?" From the standpoint of standing on the side of love for freedom of speech and other U*U principles such as a free and responsible search for truth and meaning the only reasonable answer to that question is an emphatic *Yes*.

Why shouldn't U*U ministers be able to quite publicly be critical of a colleague, as long as they "speak responsibly and temperately"?

I would hope that a minister would try to find out the facts and truth of a given situation before making a public statement. Not to mention offering to help a colleague correct a situation, such as reconciling with someone with whom they are in dispute.

Ethics is never as simple as "follow this rule or be punished." It is about relationships, and the rules we create are guidelines which evolve in the light of real-life experience.

Likewise, responses are not as simple as "throw the book at 'em." Just as there is a continuum of how much we can condemn or commend a particular course of action, so there is a continuum of what response is best suited to deal with it.

Lastly, Steve makes an excellent point about the responsibilities which come with freedom of expression. The right to speak one's mind needs to be balanced with the responsibility to make sure one has the facts straight, to temper one's words with respect, to persuade rather than bludgeon, and so forth. As George Bernard Shaw said, liberty means responsibility, which is why so many people dread it.

:I would hope that a minister would try to find out the facts and truth of a given situation before making a public statement.

So would I Desmond but, at least in terms of my situation that has lasted for over a decade now, I am not aware of any U*U ministers who have bothered to enter into a free and *responsible* search for the truth and meaning of what I am claiming. Au contraire, some uncritically accept the highly misleading and outright false U*U BS fed to them by the Unitarian Church of Montreal and/or the UUA and parrot it without making the slightest effort to check the facts with me. The pretty much across the board failure of U*U clergy to enter into a genuinely free and responsible search for the truth and meaning behind my grievances and related public protest is just one of the many ways the U*U ministers have abjectly failed and even obstinately refused to honor and uphold U*U principles in this matter.

:Not to mention offering to help a colleague correct a situation, such as reconciling with someone with whom they are in dispute.

That too is a good idea and I would like to point out that to my knowledge no U*U minister, including the minister emeritus of the Unitarian Church of Montreal Rev. Charles Eddis who was kept apprised of my grievances on a regular basis, ever did anything *effective* to try to help Rev. Ray Drennan reconcile with me. Rev. Eddis has claimed that he did try to intervene but I have no idea of what he did, if anything, and he certainly did little or nothing to criticize Rev. Ray Drennan's obviously intolerant and abusive behavior towards me. Other outrageously hypocritical U*U clergy such as Ministerial Fellowship Committee director Rev. Diane Miller backed Drennan to the hilt knowing full well what the facts were. . .

:Ethics is never as simple as "follow this rule or be punished."

I never suggested that it was Desmond but the morals and ethics of a good number of U*U ministers are open to considerable question when it comes to my situation. AFA*I*AC Rev. Diane Rollert committed perjury in her deeply misguided efforts to obtain a restraining order against me. She told several lies during sworn testimony in court and at least one of those lies can be proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

:It is about relationships, and the rules we create are guidelines which evolve in the light of real-life experience.

No kidding. . . The UUMA Guidelines are all about "relationships" alright. I look forward to the day that they actually do "evolve in the light of real-life experience."

:Likewise, responses are not as simple as "throw the book at 'em." Just as there is a continuum of how much we can condemn or commend a particular course of action, so there is a continuum of what response is best suited to deal with it.

Well sometimes "throwing the book at 'em" is highly justified. I hereby throw the "book" of the UUMA Guidelines (PDF file) at Rev. Diane Miller and the UUA administration as a whole and demand that they explain how Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant, insulting and abusive behavior as described in considerable detail in my initial letter of grievance can possibly be considered and/or construed to be within those "guidelines of ministerial leadership". I have very reasonable grounds to strongly condemn that particular "course of action" and the subsequent U*U course of inaction in terms of responsibly correcting that serious "mistake" and refusing to provide genuine restorative justice to me and indeed other victims of U*U clergy misconduct.

:Lastly, Steve makes an excellent point about the responsibilities which come with freedom of expression. The right to speak one's mind needs to be balanced with the responsibility to make sure one has the facts straight, to temper one's words with respect, to persuade rather than bludgeon, and so forth. As George Bernard Shaw said, liberty means responsibility, which is why so many people dread it.

I have my facts straight. President John Buehrens certainly didn't temper his words with respect in responding to my communications with him regarding Rev. Ray Drennan's insulting and defamatory attack on me which was the complete antithesis of respectful. In any case I do not believe that one has to "temper one's words with respect" when confronting people who are anything but respectful themselves and/or whose words and actions do not deserve any respect. When reasonable persuasion falls on willfully deaf ears and willfully blind eyes I see no reason not to "bludgeon" or even put Occam's Zweihänder to good use. . .

I was addressing the topic in general and your question as it related to the topic -- not your ongoing rants. Nor do I have any interest in being drawn into your obsession.

I have known many people who have faced far worse treatment at the hands of various religious groups and leaders, and who have handled it far better than you have. They certainly don't try to twist every online discussion they can find into yet another platform for proclaiming their victimhood.

You responded to a question I posed that was informed by my own situation Desmond. In doing so your "general" observations may be readily seen to at least indirectly reference that situation. In any case I see no reason why I cannot use my situation as a real-life *example* of U*U Ministers and Professional Ethics. . .

What you characterize as "rants" are in fact legitimate criticism of the failure of U*U ministers to live up to the letter and the spirit of professional ethics as presented in the UUMA Guidelines as well as legitimate criticism of various other well-documented U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy. They would not be *ongoing* if U*Us actually practiced justice, equity, and compassion in their human relations with me and other people who U*Us have harmed.

:Nor do I have any interest in being drawn into your obsession.

Then perhaps you should have refrained from responding to my question Desmond. BTW The only reason that I have an "obsession" with obtaining justice from U*Us is because U*Us are quite obsessive in their obstinate refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing whatsoever and to provide any restorative justice to me, to say nothing of other people U*Us have harmed and indeed victimized.

:I have known many people who have faced far worse treatment at the hands of various religious groups and leaders, and who have handled it far better than you have.

I have chosen to handle this situation in the manner that I currently handle it precisely because the UUA quite obsessively insists that it is "within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership" for U*U ministers to insult and defame and otherwise abuse me and other people Desmond. If the UUA did not expressly condone, and thus effectively endorse. . . insulting and abusive behavior on the part of U*U ministers I would be a lot more civil when sharing my concerns about U*U injustices, abuses, and hypocrisy.

:They certainly don't try to twist every online discussion they can find into yet another platform for proclaiming their victimhood.

For a guy who is into BDSM Desmond I would have thought that you would see that far from proclaiming my victimhood like some kind of whining masochist I am actually giving abusive U*Us as good as I get and then some. . . Does The Emerson Avenger look like a "sub" to you Desmond?

:That's all I have to say on the matter, at least publicly.

That's fine by me Desmond. I hope you don't mind *too* much if I have a bit more to publicly say about you and your "obsession" with BDSM in relation to U*U principles and U*U clergy sexual misconduct down the road a bit. . . Gotta love Rev. Mack Mitchell's "ravishment" of teenage Tibetan refugees eh Desmond? Now *that* egregious case of U*U clergy sexual misconduct would be worthy of some discussion under the heading of U*U Ministers and Professional Ethics wouldn't it?

Robin wrote:-snip-"Rev. Diane Rollert committed perjury in her deeply misguided efforts to obtain a restraining order against me. She told several lies during sworn testimony in court and at least one of those lies can be proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

Robin,

Was Rev. Rollert accused of perjury?

If she was accused of perjury, was she convicted of this crime?

Keep in mind that perjury isn't the same as giving factually inaccurate testimony.

Perjury is willfully giving inaccurate testimony that is relevant to the court case.

For example, lying about one's age due to vanity would not be relevant to a murder trial. However, lying about one's age would be relevant if the court case dealt with a person who fraudulently received an old-age pension.

So ... I'll ask again.

Did Rev. Rollert willfully give false testimony in a manner that was relevant to a court case?

Was she charged with perjury?

Was she convicted of perjury?

If the answers to any of these questions (based on the court records and not your opinions) is negative, then you have libeled Rev. Rollert.

"Oprah to retell disturbing tale of minister's raping of teens"http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=10820&t=1

So ... the UUA and MFC don't just sweep dirt under the rug. When misconduct has been documented, they do respond.

That suggests at least two possibilities in your situation:

(1) Misconduct happened and the MFC ignored it.

(2) What you are calling misconduct is actually just a very heated argument between you and the former minister -- in other words, your situation doesn't meet the UUA standards for ministerial misconduct.

Other than a few members of your former congregation, I haven't heard the other side of the story. All I've heard is your version. I really don't know if possibility #1, possibility #2, or something else happened in your situation.

Having seen how the MFC responds to ministerial sexual misconduct in my congregation back in 1999, they do take it very seriously.

The case of ministerial misconduct in my congregation involved consenting adults in pastoral counseling sitations -- it wasn't a criminal situation but rather a ministerial professional ethics situation.

Within weeks of the incidents being reported to the UUA, a two person team came to interview and investigate. They found enough probable cause to have a formal hearing. Our ex-minister short-circuited the process by voluntarily resigning his fellowshiped status.

Sadly, the fellowship status is the only carrot/stick that the UUA with ministerial misconduct.

This former UU minister still calls himself a minister due to a quirk in our polity (a church in Chicago ordained him and that wasn't affected by his fellowship resignation). He still holds worship services and counseling sessions in his home with no ecclesiastical oversight at all.

I guess our ex-minister still calling himself ordained after ministerial misconduct is a negative aspect of our congregational polity.

I have not formally accused Rev. Diane Rollert of committing perjury yet but it is an option that I am considering. I understand that doing so would only prolongue our little problem by a few more years, so I may not bother to try to press charges against her in the interests of trying to achieve a resolution of this conflict sooner rather than later.

:If she was accused of perjury, was she convicted of this crime?

See above.

:Keep in mind that perjury isn't the same as giving factually inaccurate testimony. Perjury is willfully giving inaccurate testimony that is relevant to the court case.

I am aware of that Steve and AFA*I*AC the "factually inaccurate testimony" that Rev. Diane Rollert gave was relevant to the case. A Crown Prosecutor might decide otherwise however. At least some of the "factually inaccurate testimony" that Rev. Diane Rollert gave can be properly described as knowing and willful lies and not just falsehoods.

:So ... I'll ask again. Did Rev. Rollert willfully give false testimony in a manner that was relevant to a court case?

AFA*I*AC yes.

:Was she charged with perjury?

Not yet.

:Was she convicted of perjury?

Not yet.

:If the answers to any of these questions (based on the court records and not your opinions) is negative, then you have libeled Rev. Rollert.

Wrong. I clearly said AFA*I*AC i.e. "As far as I am concerned" aka "In my opinion". You snipped that bit Steve. . . U*Us would do well to think twice about accusing me of libeling U*Us considering just how often U*Us have slandered and/or libeled me Steve. AFA*I*AC some of Rev. Diane Rollert's court testimony about me is slanderous, certainly some of the things said in various depositions to the police is quite libelous and slanderous.

:Why is another writer's personal sexual life relevant to this thread?

AFA*I*AC Desmond Ravenstone's proclivity for BDSM was relevant to his characterization's of me Steve. Someone into BDSM should know better than to effectively characterize me as playing the victim.

:Furthermore, why do you make a comparison between BDSM (consensual sex between consenting adults) and UU clergy sexual misconduct involving minors?

Don't be so sure of that Steve. I am quite aware of the information about Rev. Mack Mitchell that you provided Steve. After all I am a past master of doing quick Google searches or indeed not so quick Google searches. Yes, only months *after* Rev. Mack Mitchell was finally convicted of raping teenage Tibetan refugees he brought to America under false pretenses the UUA's Ministerial Fellowship Committee held a formal hearing on charges of conduct unbecoming a minister and voted to remove Mack Wallace Mitchell from ministerial fellowship. What prevented the MFC from holding that formal hearing earlier Steve. What did the UUA and local congregation do between the time that the Tibetan teenagers first reported Rev. Mack Mitchell's egregious clergy sexual misconduct and November 1992 Steve? Dig deeper and it's not a pretty picture. . .

:So ... the UUA and MFC don't just sweep dirt under the rug. When misconduct has been documented, they do respond.

ROTFLMU*UO! You are over grossly over-generalizing Steve. The UUA and MFC most certainly do just sweep dirt under the rug. They swept this U*U dirt under the rug, they swept this U*U dirt under the rug, and they have swept plenty of other U*U dirt under the rug.

:That suggests at least two possibilities in your situation:

(1) Misconduct happened and the MFC ignored it.

The MFC did not simply ignore it Steve they said that what Rev. Ray Drennan said and did, as reported in my lengthy and detailed original letter of grievance and shorter follow-up letters was "within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership". *That* is not "ignoring" Rev. Ray Drennan's misconduct, it is condoning it if not effectively endorsing it aka whitewashing it or indeed sweeping it under the very lumpy rug at the place that "reeks of privilege and hierarchy" 25 Beacon Street in Boston. . .

:(2) What you are calling misconduct is actually just a very heated argument between you and the former minister -- in other words, your situation doesn't meet the UUA standards for ministerial misconduct.

Rev. Ray Drennan was "heated" he came into the meeting in a foul mood. I was not "heated". I responded in a calm cool and collected manner to his repeated insults and abuse. But you're right Steve. It would appear from what the UUA and MFC said in response to my complaint that an intolerant and abusive U*U minister mocking and ridiculing a congregant's religious beliefs, contemptuously dismissing that congregant's claimed revelatory religious experience as "your psychotic experience" and angrily insisting that he seek "professional help" and then going on to falsely and maliciously slander the inter-religious celebration of Creation that said congregant quite successfully organized as "your cult" does not meet the UUA standards for ministerial misconduct, or so they claim. Right Steve? It seems to me that pretending that Rev. Ray Drennan's intolerant and abusive behavior, as I described it at length and in detail, "seemed to us to be within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership" effectively means that such intolerant and abusive behavior doesn't "meet the UUA standards for ministerial misconduct." No, it seems that you need to be convicted of forcible rape of minors before the UUA and MFC will quite belatedly take any action. . . Of course if you happen to plagiarize a few of your professional colleagues' Sunday sermons well *that* is a very serious offense that will cause the UUA and MFC to almost immediately pressure you to resign your pulpit. . .

:Other than a few members of your former congregation, I haven't heard the other side of the story. All I've heard is your version. I really don't know if possibility #1, possibility #2, or something else happened in your situation.

It's a synthesis of #1 AND #2 and plenty of "something else" happened after the UUA and MFC ble me off Steve. AFA*I*AC Misconduct definitely happened but the UUA MFC *pretended* that Rev. Ray Drennan's misconduct did not meet the UUA standards for ministerial misconduct being "within the appropriate guidelines" and all. That cleared the way for a whole lot of "something else" to happen didn't it Steve?

:Having seen how the MFC responds to ministerial sexual misconduct in my congregation back in 1999, they do take it very seriously.

While "sweeping it under the rug" as in keeping it hidden from the view of other U*Us Steve? In any case *some* cases of clergy sexual misconduct may be taken very seriously but it seems that plenty of others are not, or at least were not taken nearly seriously enough as the UUA's official apology to victims of clergy sexual misconduct makes abundantly clear. . . Part of *my* problem Steve is that the UUA did not and apparently still does not take *non-sexual* forms of clergy misconduct very seriously at all. In fact, when I asked the MFC to review its handling of my complaint against Rev. Ray Drennan in 2002 and it dropped the ball a second time, Rev. David Hubner effectively told me that the reason that the MFC chose to "stand on the side of love" as in doing absolutely nothing to redress my grievances was because Rev. Ray Drennan's clergy misconduct was not sexual in nature.

:The case of ministerial misconduct in my congregation involved consenting adults in pastoral counseling sitations -- it wasn't a criminal situation but rather a ministerial professional ethics situation.

That is no doubt par for the course for many if not most cases of clergy sexual misconduct committed by U*U ministers.

:Within weeks of the incidents being reported to the UUA, a two person team came to interview and investigate. They found enough probable cause to have a formal hearing. Our ex-minister short-circuited the process by voluntarily resigning his fellowshiped status.

I expect that "short-circuiting the process" by voluntarily resigning is a common practice Steve. One that may well be encouraged by the UUA and MFC. It is the same dynamic is someone pleading guilty to criminal charges in order to avoid a criminal trial that might bring a whole lot of dirt to the surface. The minister's resignation keeps much if not most of the dirt swept under the carpet. . . Right?

BTW There was no proper MFC investigation of my complaint against Drennan. In fact, I doubt that my grievances were ever even brought to the attention of the MFC as a whole. My initial grievances were "screened" by President Buehrens and Rev. Diane Miller and *possibly* a few other people. In 2002 Rev. Hubner told me that my grievances would be reviewed by the MFC as a whole but this never happened. At best the Executive of the MFC reviewed my complaint and decided to let sleeping dogs lie. . .

:Sadly, the fellowship status is the only carrot/stick that the UUA with ministerial misconduct.

Sadly indeed Steve. . . That is just one of the many serious flaws that still exist in the UUA's procedures for handling clergy misconduct complaints. All I sought at the beginning of this conflict was a retraction and apology that I could honorably accept. For want of that "nail" look where we are today. . .

:This former UU minister still calls himself a minister due to a quirk in our polity (a church in Chicago ordained him and that wasn't affected by his fellowship resignation). He still holds worship services and counseling sessions in his home with no ecclesiastical oversight at all.

Right. . . I have heard a number of similar stories about U*U clergy who have actually been found guilty of committing clergy sexual misconduct remaining as full blown U*U ministers at other U*U churches Steve. You might want to look into that further.

:I guess our ex-minister still calling himself ordained after ministerial misconduct is a negative aspect of our congregational polity.

One amongst plenty of others Steve. Indeed congregational polity is a major part of the problem when it comes to the (mis)handling of U*U clergy misconduct of all kinds. .

I guess our ex-minister still calling himself ordained after ministerial misconduct is a negative aspect of our congregational polity.

In the old days each church did its own ordinations, which were only valid as long as the church officer continued to hold the office to which he/she was ordained. At some point the member churches of the denomination began recognizing each others' ordinations, so a minister called out of one pulpit and into another did not need to be ordained anew.

I don't know the fine points of what conditions are necessary for an ordination to remain valid, but as I understand it, the MFC and the UUMA are the present-day mechanisms by which we as an association of congregations maintain the validity of ordinations after departure from the original ordaining church. I would therefore suppose that if he both (1) no longer held an active pulpit, and (2) had resigned from the UUMA, his ordination has lapsed.

Yes, you are pretty good about assuming things CC. Why do you apparently assume that the victim is female and that there is only one? Are you familiar with the details of this particular case of clergy sexual misconduct? The fact of the matter is that when clergy sexual misconduct occurs there are usually more than one victim. In fact the congregation as a whole is arguably a victim of its minister's betrayal of trust. . . Maybe Steve can fill us in on how his congregation as a whole was affected by its ministers sexual misconduct.

Chalicechick wrote:-snip-"If the former minister was not ordained by a UU church and isn't calling himself a UU minister any more*, then what more could the UUMA do to him?"

CC,

Actually, he was ordained by a UU congregation in Chicago before moving to our community.

He has been using his "ordained" status to continue working as a therapist without any secular licensing and to host worship services in his home.

I'm not a lawyer but my understanding of Louisiana law is that a minister can provide counseling services without a license or certification by virtue of the "Rev." title. Without the "Rev." title, he would be doing mental health work without a license.

This former UU minister's claim here is that he's still ordained by the Chicago UU church that ordained him -- all he has done is resign his credentials within our association of congregations. This Chicago UU church hasn't "unordained" him so he still considers himself a minister.

One could claim that his ordination has lapsed (as Fausto has), but it's not that obvious to everyone. We still have some members of our congregation who attend his in-home services and use his counseling services even though he admitted to the sexual misconduct charges before resigning from our pulpit and before resigning his fellowship status. During the time that he resigned, we had members who defended the minister and were bad-mouthing the persons who made the accusations.

The bottom line here is there was enough probable cause to hold a formal hearing and the ex-minister short-circuited that by resigning his fellowshipped status.

Like I said earlier, this lack of ecclesiastical control over former ministers who were ordained and are still claiming the "Rev." honorific is one drawback to our decentralized congregational polity.

Thanks for the link to Robin's blog about the so-called perjury allegation.

I wasn't even clear how calling one's fears about flying non-phobic was relevant to the court case.

Hypothetically, how is Rev. Rollert's statement about her fear of flying and her characterization of it as non-phobic relevant to court case asking for a restraining order against Robin.

The best that one can hope to do with this is to use the "liar, liar - pants on fire" legal doctrine in an attempt to make the witness look less than trustworthy in the court.

In the hands of a skilled lawyer, this might work but it's a long shot.

Of course, I'm guessing this didn't work and the court provided the church with legal relief by granting a restraining order.

So ... I'm still not seeing the relevance of Rev. Rollert's so-called phobias to question that you were a threatening presence to the members of your former church and the church needed a restraining order to provide them with legal relief.

:I wasn't even clear how calling one's fears about flying non-phobic was relevant to the court case. . . Hypothetically, how is Rev. Rollert's statement about her fear of flying and her characterization of it as non-phobic relevant to court case asking for a restraining order against Robin.

The answer is very simple and straightforward Steve. Rev. Diane Rollert was seeking a restraining order against me on the basis of claiming to have "reasonable grounds" to *fear* that I would commit a "serious personal injury offense" against her, as per Section 810.2 of the Criminal Code which allows that;(1) Any person who fears on reasonable grounds that another person will commit a serious personal injury offence, as that expression is defined in section 752, may, with the consent of the Attorney General, lay an information before a provincial court judge, whether or not the person or persons in respect of whom it is feared that the offence will be committed are named.

Rev. Diane Rollert's irrational fear of flying, as described in her sermon, calls into question how *reasonable* her other fears may be including her claim to be "very frightened" of me. Even if that claimed fear is real that does not mean that she actually has any *reasonable* grounds for that fear. Her lie that the sermon was only about on particularly scary flight was obviously an effort to play down other *other* well-documented unreasonable fear aka phobia.

:The best that one can hope to do with this is to use the "liar, liar - pants on fire" legal doctrine in an attempt to make the witness look less than trustworthy in the court.

Well there is that too Steve. Rev. Diane Rollert was considerably less than trustworthy in the court, to say nothing of before even getting there AFA*I*AC. She told a small handful of lies, some of which are not easy to prove, but this particular lie is readily provable.

:In the hands of a skilled lawyer, this might work but it's a long shot.

Well even a skilled lawyer can't do much to change the prejudiced mind of a hostile and biased judge. . . Of course, had I chosen to be represented by even a second-rate lawyer, Quebec Court Judge Rollande Matte might not have been quite as biased or hostile. It was glaringly obvious that part of her bias against me was because I chose to represent myself in court.

:Of course, I'm guessing this didn't work and the court provided the church with legal relief by granting a restraining order.

Yes Quebec Court judge Rollande Matte provided Rev. Diane Rollert and/or the Unitarian Church of Montreal with one year's worth of rather questionable "legal relief" from my peaceful public protest against the injustices, abuses and hypocrisy that I am protesting against by granting a restraining order that I expect few other judges would have granted considering that there were, and still are. . . virtually no "reasonable grounds" for Rev. Diane Rollert, or any other Montreal Unitarian for that matter, to fear that I will commit a serious personal injury offence against *anyone*. The paranoia and/or perjuriousness of Rev. Diane Rollert and other Montreal Unitarian U*Us is palpable in their written depositions and court testiminoy. The restraining order expired in mid-June and I will resume my protest in the fall if Rev. Diane Rollert and the Unitarian Church of Montreal fail or refuse to move towards a genuinely just, equitable and compassionate settlement of this conflict over the course of the summer.

It would be a very difficult case to prove since Robin's only evidence is a sermon and ministers are known to exaggerate in sermons. It doesn't surprise me that the state didn't go after perjury charges. (At least in America, Robin would have no power to bring perjury charges himself. The state would have to decide the perjury was sufficiently relevant and chose to bring them.)

Robin also asked the questions in a way that left them very much open to Rev. Rollert's interpretation and as long as she can claim that she interpreted them in a way that made her answer truthful, she's in the clear.

Real trial attorneys ask a lot of yes or no questions with only one interpretation (e.g. Has a psychiatrist ever diagnosed you with a phobia? Have you ever taken medication or drunk alcohol before flying?) for this reason. Lots of yes or no questions keep the questioner in control of the testimony and make it much clearer when perjury is actually happening.

:It would be a very difficult case to prove since Robin's only evidence is a sermon and ministers are known to exaggerate in sermons.

ROOTFLMU*UO! Even if Rollert exaggerated in her sermon, which is open to considerable question, she LIED about the content of the sermon.

:It doesn't surprise me that the state didn't go after perjury charges.

You are talking through your hat again CC. I have not made the slightest effort to have Rev. Diane Rollert charged with perjury or contradictory testimony yet, as should be clear from my answers to Steve's questions here.

:(At least in America, Robin would have no power to bring perjury charges himself. The state would have to decide the perjury was sufficiently relevant and chose to bring them.)

:Robin also asked the questions in a way that left them very much open to Rev. Rollert's interpretation and as long as she can claim that she interpreted them in a way that made her answer truthful, she's in the clear.

You're *too* funny CC. How can you possibly know whether or not I "asked the questions in a way that left them very much open to Rev. Rollert's interpretation"? Did you shell out the hundreds of dollars it would cost to obtain the audio recording of the hearings?